California’s highest court has handed a significant setback to court reporter unions, ruling this week that judges may allow hearings to be electronically recorded whenever a certified stenographer isn’t on hand to produce an official transcript.
In a unanimous decision issued Monday, the California Supreme Court found that the state’s long-standing restrictions on courtroom recording devices unfairly penalized residents who lack the money to hire a private reporter — often at a cost of thousands of dollars per hearing.
The ruling is likely to reverberate through courthouses across the Inland Empire and the rest of Southern California, where, like much of the state, a persistent shortage of certified court reporters has left many civil, family and probate hearings without any official record at all.
For years, unions representing court reporters have pushed to keep electronic recording tightly restricted, arguing that only trained professionals can guarantee an accurate, dependable transcript — a document often essential for anyone hoping to appeal a court’s decision. But as CalMatters reported last year, California’s reporter shortage has already left millions of hearings undocumented, forcing many litigants to either pay steep fees for private reporters, wait months for one to become available, or simply proceed without any transcript.
The case decided this week arose from a challenge brought by advocacy organizations representing survivors of domestic violence, who argued that the current system amounts to a “two-tiered” form of justice — one where wealthier litigants can secure an official transcript while everyone else is left without recourse.
“The continued failure of the superior courts to provide indigent litigants with a means of obtaining an official verbatim record deprives them of ‘meaningful access to the judicial process,’” Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote in the court’s opinion, referencing earlier legal precedent. In legal terms, “indigent” refers to someone unable to afford private legal representation or court-related expenses.
Attorneys representing the reporters’ unions had warned that electronic recordings can suffer from poor audio quality and are no substitute for a trained professional capturing testimony in real time. They also argued that court administrators have been too slow to fill vacant reporter positions, worsening the shortage rather than solving it.
Scott Kronland, the attorney who represented the unions in the case, said the ruling could actually help the reporting profession by pressuring courts to lift hiring freezes. “Court reporter schools are full and have waiting lists,” he said in a statement. “Superior courts must hire those court reporters.”
Still, Guerrero’s opinion made clear that the court viewed some record — even an imperfect one — as preferable to none. “A verbatim record created by electronic recording is better than no record at all,” she wrote.
The scope of the problem is substantial. Since 2023, more than 3 million court proceedings statewide have taken place without any transcript, according to data from California’s Judicial Branch. Many of those hearings involve sensitive matters such as domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, child custody and support disputes, marital dissolution, debt collection, workplace and housing discrimination claims, and probate guardianship cases.
Under the state’s current priority system, serious criminal cases — such as felony trials — receive first access to available court reporters, often leaving other types of hearings unrecorded on especially busy days. The vast majority of California’s major civil cases proceed without a reporter present, and more than half of family law and probate hearings go undocumented as well.
That leaves many litigants with an unenviable choice: spend upward of $3,000 to hire a private reporter, delay proceedings for months in hopes that a court reporter becomes available, or move forward without any record — and without the ability to appeal if something goes wrong.
In her opinion, Guerrero pointed out that federal courts, many other states and even certain categories of California cases already permit electronic recording, arguing that this track record shows the technology can serve as a workable substitute when reporters aren’t available. Under existing state law, recording is currently allowed only in misdemeanor cases, infractions and civil suits seeking less than $35,000 in damages.
Several legal advocacy groups and constitutional law scholars filed briefs supporting expanded use of recording technology, citing potential savings for courts and warning that the current system effectively cuts off lower-income residents from full participation in the justice system.
“The overriding principle should be to protect the people’s access to justice, which is a fundamental element of individual liberty,” wrote David Carrillo of UC Berkeley School of Law and Stephen Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group in one such filing.
Court reporter unions, which lobbied successfully years ago to get recording banned in most California courtrooms, have continued fighting efforts to loosen those restrictions. In 2023, union pressure helped kill a bill that would have permitted recording in all civil cases. A similar union-backed measure introduced last year by Assemblymember Diane Papan, a Democrat from San Mateo, would have allowed courts to use recording devices for a three-year trial period. But the state’s Judicial Council criticized the bill for including so many restrictions that judges would have had little real authority to use the technology. The measure stalled in the Senate and was later withdrawn by Papan before a vote could be taken this summer.
The Service Employees International Union, which represents many of California’s court reporters, remains one of the most politically influential labor groups in the state, having contributed more than $16.6 million to political campaigns since 2016, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Papan’s own campaigns have received at least $70,500 from SEIU and its affiliated unions during that period. She did not respond to a request for comment following the court’s ruling.
Meanwhile, courts throughout California have ramped up recruitment efforts, offering higher pay and hiring bonuses in hopes of attracting more reporters to the profession. According to the Judicial Branch, the median total compensation for a California court reporter — including benefits — now tops $200,000 annually. State law also requires that hearing transcripts be purchased directly from court reporters, who retain that revenue themselves.
Even with those financial incentives, many courts are struggling to fill open positions. Los Angeles County’s Superior Court, for example, is currently offering a $50,000 signing bonus along with a $25,000 referral fee for employees who help recruit a new court reporter. Despite those efforts, the court reported 92 vacant reporter positions as of this summer — an improvement from 106 vacancies a year earlier, according to a public dashboard tracking the shortage.
Original source: CalMatters
